Chapter One of Title 17 of the United States Code presents the “Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright” in American law.  According to Section 102, copyright protection is given to “original works of authorship” including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” Section 106 states the “exclusive rights” of the owner of a copyright includes “to display the copyrighted work publicly.” Section 107 delineates that “the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”   In evaluating an alleged a fair use, Section 107 presents four factors to be considered: “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational uses; the nature of the copyrighted word; the amount and substitutability of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for a value of the copyrighted work.”  In Section 113, “Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” an exclusive right is given to the copyright owner to “reproduce a copyrighted pictorial…in or on any kind of article, whether useful or not.”  Chapter Five of Title 17 presents “Copyright Infringement and Remedies” in American law.  Stated in Section 501, “anyone who violates the exclusive rights of a copyright owner…is an infringer.”  In Section 502, the law states “any court having jurisdiction…may…grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” Additionally, Section 504 states the infringer of copyright is liable for “the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, ” or “statutory damages.”  Statutory damages may be awarded up to the amount of $150,000.  
    For the purposes of my research paper, the aforementioned sections establish that photographs can be copyrighted and cites the four factors used to analyze fair use cases.  Argued by the photography agencies in complaints, the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publically” is flagrantly violated by Perez Hilton, who often displays copyrighted photographs before the agencies can license them to weekly tabloids and newspapers.  Although Hilton argues that his use of the photographs represents “news reporting,” the four factors stated in the copyright law will allow me to determine if Hilton’s infamous doodles and commentary constitutes a fair use.  Hilton’s alleged fair use will heavily depend on whether his doodling on the photographs is transformative, in that it adds new meaning or expression to the copyrighted work, or if his news commentary is transformative, in that it adds value in the form of new insights or understandings.  Furthermore, the “Copyright Infringement and Remedies” section will allow me to evaluate the photographers and photography agencies’ prayers for relief in the filed complaints.  The law states that infringers are liable for either actual damages and additional profits or statutory damages.  If Perez Hilton’s use of photographs was infringement, it will be interesting to research whether or not courts would award statutory damages per photograph or award actual damages.  Although Hilton does not charge a fee for visiting his website, he earns significant revenue by means if advertising, and his use of copyrighted photographs certainly increase his advertising rates.

Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853

Title 17 defines copyright law in the United States in thirteen chapters.  The foundation of title 17 comes from the Copyright Act of 1976 but has been heavily updated since then.

Application to international law is addressed in the appendixes of the title, with the focus of Appendixes II through VI dealing with the Berne Convention of 1886 and the Uruguay Round Agreements, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade annexed to the WTO Agreement.  There are two agreements which title 17 references, one in 1947 and another in 1994.

The appendixes of title 17 define the United State’s adherence to the Berne Convention and subsequent GATT treaties.  Appendix II states that the acceptance of the Berne Convention by the United States does not take precedence over US law and that any provisions to the convention cannot expand or reduce any rights US authors currently have.  Simply put, Appendix II states a voluntary adherence to the Berne Convention in its current state while maintaining the strength of US law over the treaty.

            It is important to note that while the United States respects the treaty in all member nations, respects and defines “Berne Convention Work,” it maintains current US law in practice before the specifics of the convention.  This is important with regard to US Fair Use policy.  The United States is almost unique in it’s definition of fair use, which title 17 upholds while still participating in the Berne Convention.  Title 17 clearly states that US law takes priority over international treaties, which is good for US authors so they can continue current practices of work creation.

            This applies to my thesis through the voluntary adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention.  The US realizes the need for standards of trades and practices in the global community and does not abandon its history and heritage of case law.  Currently one of the major exporters of intellectual property, the United States maintains a high degree of protection for its domestic works.  The film industry is therefore able to expand current practices into the global economy due to the United State’s participation in the Berne Convention.

 

No longer can Hollywood live in "splendid isolation." Many sectors of commerce including film seek to expand into the global marketplace, but they do not want to abandon their current practices of US copyright law in order to do so. The Berne Convention of 1886 was the first international agreement for intellectual property protection, but the US didn't join it for over 100 years. Through a process of changing certain copyright laws, the US was able to join the convention while still maintaining a uniquely American form of copyright law. This has led to major expansions in US economies such as film, where Hollywood has been able to increase their profits and distribution many times over thanks, in part, to the unique ways that the United States approached the Berne Convention.